9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. The details of the period involved and the demand and penalties imposed in each of the appeal is shown as under:- ST/109/2008 Period involved : June 2005 to September 2006 ST demanded : Rs. 52,71,511/- Penalties : Sec. 76 - Rs. 100/200 per day Sec. 77 - Rs. 1,000/- Sec. 78 - Rs. 75,00,000/- Paid so far : Rs. 39,55,544/- ST for normal period : Rs. 5,40,951/- ST/107/2008 Period involved : October 2006 to September 2007 ST demanded : Rs. 1,52,34,804/- Penalties : Sec. 76 - Rs. 200 per day Sec. 77 - Rs. 1,000/- Sec. 78 - Rs. 1,55,00,000/- Paid so far : Rs. 1,55,95,398/- an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability only because the customers failed to reimburse the service tax which resulted in heavy financial burden to the appellants. That therefore the demand raised invoking the extended period alleging suppression of facts is unsustainable. He therefore pleaded to set aside the demand for the extended period and also to set aside the penalty. 2.2 With regard to Appeal No. ST/42251/2015, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the demand has been made on the basis of the profit and loss account of the appellants and by comparing the same with the ST-3 returns filed by them. There was difference in the value which was explained by the appellant to the department. That the service tax charged was accounted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsable amount also namely salaries etc., we are of the considered view that the penalty imposed is unwarranted. Therefore in appeals No.ST/109/2008, ST/107/2009 and ST/567/2009, penalties imposed under Section 76 and 78 are set aside. The impugned orders in these appeals are modified to the extent of setting aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76 and 78 without disturbing the demand of service tax, interest thereon or the penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4.2 In appeal No. ST/42251/2015 as discussed earlier, the Ld. Counsel has brought out sufficient grounds for remanding the matter for re-adjudication. We, theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
